Key findings and conclusions:

 Cisco's Aironet 1572 AP delivers from 40 and 58 percent more

downlink bandwidth to a Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone at
300 feet than the Aruba 275 and the Ruckus T300, respectively.
At 1,000 feet the Cisco AP delivers more than five times the
bandwidth of either the Aruba or Ruckus AP to a Galaxy S4.
Lab Testing  Cisco 1572 delivered a substantially consistent performance in
Summary a multi-iPhone 6 environment with more than two times the
downlink bandwidth of either Aruba or Ruckus AP when traffic
Report to all 10 iPhone 6 devices passed at the same time.
 In a backhaul test, Cisco 1572s delivered 600 Mbps of wireless
throughput between wired networks 1,000 feet apart. Neither
January 2015 Aruba nor Ruckus APs supported such backhaul
configurations due to lack of mesh at the time of testing.
Report 141212  Cisco 1572 consistently outperforms both Aruba and Ruckus
in a high-client density environment serving from 10 to 100
mixed clients (see below chart).
Product Category:

C
isco engaged Miercom to compare the performance of Cisco's
Wireless Access Aironet 1570 Series wireless access points (APs) with products
Points from Aruba Networks, the AP-275, and Ruckus Wireless' T300
AP. Most of the throughput and performance tests for this comparative
analysis were conducted outdoors in the fall of 2014.
Vendor Tested: In a high-client density test (see below graph), the Cisco Aironet 1570
outperformed the Aruba and Ruckus APs by delivering consistent,
linear throughput performance as client load grew from 10 to 100.
Figure 1: High Client Density Performance

100 100 Clients

Clients Dual
Dual BandTCP
Band TCPDownlink
Downlink Performance
Performance
Products Tested:
500

Cisco Aironet 450

400 Cisco
1570 Series 1572e
350
MEGABITS/SEC

Cisco
Aruba Networks 300
1572i
AP-275 250
Aruba
200 275
Ruckus Wireless 150 Ruckus
100
T300
T300
50

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NUMBER OF CLIENTS
Source: Miercom, January 2015

Consistent winner. The throughput delivered by the Cisco 1572i (with internal
antenna), and 1572e (with external antenna) is compared with the Aruba AP-
275 and Ruckus T300 APs for 10 to 100 802.11n/ac mixed-device clients. The
Cisco AP consistently outperformed the Aruba and Ruckus APs in all
environments.
The tests employed various real-world clients,
including Samsung Galaxy S4, S5, and Apple
iPhone 6 smartphones, along with iPads, Apple
MacBooks, and Dell laptops. This assorted mix
of client devices supported from one to three
spatial streams, supporting 802.11n and the
latest 802.11ac IEEE wireless standards.
Cisco Aironet 1572 has built-in support for both
802.11ac and the predecessor 802.11n spec, as
well as earlier 802.11a/b/g. Models of the
Aironet 1570 Series come with internal
antennas or external antennas, and support
various AC, DC and cable/Power-over-Cable
(PoC) options.
All 1570 models also support dual-band
operation – the ability to operate on both the
2.4-GHz and 5-GHz frequency bands
concurrently. The Aironet 1570 Series supports
the maximum radiated RF power allowed by
law, which likely contributed to the Cisco AP's
superior performance over Aruba and Ruckus,
especially at longer distances – we tested at up
to 1,000 feet (300 meters).
Aruba Networks' AP-275 and Ruckus Wireless'
T300 APs were each tested with the internal
antennas. Cisco 1572 models with internal and
external antennas were both employed in our
testing.
Measuring Throughput
The best metric for comparing wireless
performance, which we applied throughout this
testing, is down-link throughput. That is the
amount of data that a user with a mobile device
actually realizes, and this is largely dependent
on the characteristics of the data and wireless
connection – signal strength, distance,
frequency band, channel bandwidth, modulation,
protocol, application, and a host of other factors
including weather and interference.
Down-link throughput can be TCP-based – the
connection-oriented transport protocol used for
Web browsing and FTP file downloads – or
connectionless UDP, popularly used for audio,
VoIP and video streaming. Our testing for this
report used both but most of the results shown
are based on TCP.
The main tool that assured consistency of our
down-link throughput measurements was a
powerful tool from Ixia called IxChariot, which
simulates real-world applications to predict
device, system, and network performance.
Every effort was made to ensure the same
conditions were applied with each Access Point.
Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point
But even during the same test with the same AP,
performance measurements varied. Subsequently
all tests were conducted multiple times and
averages were calculated. All the values shown in
this report are the average of multiple test runs.
Test Cases
Four sets of tests were devised to exercise the
Access Points' comparative performance:
1. Outdoor Rate vs Range: Single and multiple
spatial streams 802.11ac devices – Samsung
Galaxy S4s and S5s – were tested at 300, 600 and
1,000 feet from the Access Points.
2. Outdoor Multi Client Performance and
Consistency: A total of 10 of Apple's 802.11ac
capable latest iPhone 6 smartphones were tested
simultaneously.
3. Outdoor Mesh Backhaul Test: Wireless
throughput between two APs, linking two wired
networks that are 1,000 feet apart.
4. High-Client Density Performance Test: The
average throughput per client, with a mix of
802.11n and 802.11ac devices, measured in
increments up to 100 clients.
Outdoor Rate vs Range Tests
A bird's-eye view of the outdoor test range is shown
on the next page. The four access points – two
Cisco 1572 models, one with internal antenna and
one with external antenna, and the Aruba and
Ruckus APs – were mounted on the roof of the
building at the far right. The distance across two
parking lots was marked at 100-foot intervals.
In addition, for the backhaul test, a 30-foot tower at
the far left supported another Cisco AP, with local
wired subnet, 1,000 feet from the rooftop APs.
The clients for these tests were placed on tables
that were positioned at the required distances, all
with a clear line of sight to the rooftop APs. See
How We Did It on page 8 for more details on the
test set-up.
For the rate-vs-range tests, two different clients
were employed, both supporting the latest IEEE
802.11ac wireless specification:
 Samsung Galaxy S4, a widely deployed
Android smartphone that employs the
Broadcom WLAN chipset supporting a single
802.11ac spatial stream.
 Samsung Galaxy S5, a newer Android smart-
phone model, supporting two spatial streams.
Page 2
 Figure 2: Outdoor Test Area Aerial View
Rate and Range Table
Position Legend
1. 300’ RvR.1*
2. 300’ RvR.2
3. 600’ RvR.3
4. 600’ RvR.4
4 6
5. 350’ Multi Client Table 2
6. 500’ Multi Client Table 1
2 7. 1000’ RvR.5
8. 1000’ RvR.6
7 1 9. Mesh AP Mount Point
3 5 AP

*RvR = Rate vs Range

Long-distance calls. An aerial view of the outdoor test area in suburban Ohio is shown above, with
300, 600 and 1,000-foot distances. The Access Points (APs) are mounted on the roof of the building
on the far right. The test area, across two parking lots, was marked off in 100-foot intervals.

Both of these wireless clients were placed on a
table positioned at 300, 600 and 1,000-foot
distances from the access point. Multiple test
runs with multiple rotations from each location
were conducted to acquire the average
throughput representing closest-to-accurate
real-world performance.
We observed in setting up the test bed that rain
and vehicular traffic or parked cars between the
clients and the AP could impact performance.
So, for consistency, all for-the-record testing
was conducted in dry weather and after hours
with no cars in the parking lot and minimum
vehicular traffic.
The maximum data rates that clients can
theoretically achieve in the 802.11ac WiFi
environment are outstanding. Client-device and
AP support for two or three spatial streams can
double or triple the throughput. The maximum
theoretical data rates are:
 With three spatial streams = 1,300 Mbps
 With two spatial streams = 867 Mbps
 With a single spatial stream = 433 Mbps.
These theoretical maximum data rates, the
physical layer (PHY) speed at which client
devices communicate with the AP, assume
perfect transmit conditions and do not take into
account the many factors that can reduce
throughput when passing actual data traffic,
including application and protocol.
The connection-oriented TCP, for example, can
reduce throughput drastically due to protocol
overhead. An FTP download, which uses TCP, for
example, can easily reduce a theoretical maximum
throughput in half.
Figures 3 and 4 on the next page show the
resulting average throughput by client. Results for
the two different smartphones are shown in
separate charts. The throughput values shown are
an average of four test runs for each client at each
location. It should also be noted that, due to
inconsistent results, additional test runs were
needed for the Aruba AP to achieve a proper
average in almost all test cases.
As expected, throughput declines as the client
distance from the access point increases. Figure 3
shows that Samsung's Galaxy S4 smartphone,
which supports just one spatial stream, could
achieve a down-link throughput of 229 Mbps at 300
feet with the Cisco AP1572.
Comparatively, though, the throughput delivered by
Cisco at 300 feet is significantly more than could
be obtained by the Galaxy S4 user from either the
Aruba or Ruckus APs tested.
 At 300 feet, the Cisco 1572 delivers 40 percent
more throughput to a Galaxy S4 than Aruba's AP-
275, and 58 percent more than the Ruckus T300.
 At 1,000 feet, the Cisco 1572 delivers more than
five times the down-link throughput to a Galaxy S4
than either the Aruba AP-275 or the Ruckus T300.

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 3

Figure 3: Galaxy S4 Throughput at 300, 600 and 1,000 Feet
The newer Galaxy S5
smartphone, support-
802.11ac Outdoor Rate vs Range - Galaxy S4 ing two spatial streams,
Average 5GHz TCP Downlink Throughput achieved its best down-
link throughput average
250 of 362 Mbps, at 300
Cisco
feet, with the Cisco
200 AP1572i
1572 AP. Again, the
performance delivered
by the Cisco AP was
150 Aruba
considerably better than
Mbps

AP275
the competition:
100
Ruckus On analyzing the Rate
APT300 vs Range data, it was
50 clearly apparent that
the smartphone clients,
0 when connected to
300 Feet 600 Feet 1000 Feet Aruba or Ruckus, start
Distance from Access Point struggling to maintain
Source: Miercom, January 2015 the higher data rates
beyond the mid-range
Galaxy S4. At 300 feet, the Cisco 1572 delivers 40 percent more throughput to of 600 feet.
a Galaxy S4 than Aruba's AP-275, and 58 percent more than the Ruckus T300. At 1000 feet, Cisco
At 1,000 feet, the Cisco 1572 delivers more than five times the down-link 1572 AP managed to
throughput to a Galaxy 4S than either the Aruba AP-275 or the Ruckus T300. keep up with the higher
data rate connections
which allowed for a
Figure 4: Galaxy S5 Throughput at 300, 600 and 1,000 Feet much higher average
throughput performance
for both the devices
802.11ac Outdoor Rate vs Range - Galaxy S5 even at longer
Average 5GHz TCP Downlink Throughput distances.
We observed that the
400
Cisco average throughput
350 performance for both of
AP1572i
300 the Galaxy devices at
250 Aruba 1,000 feet with the
Mbps

200 AP275 Cisco AP1572 was

150
more than the average
Ruckus performance with either
100 the Ruckus or Aruba
APT300
50 APs at 300 feet.
0
300 Feet 600 Feet 1000 Feet Multi-Client
Distance from Access Point Performance &
Source: Miercom, January 2015
Consistency
Galaxy S5. At 300 feet, the Cisco 1572 delivered 28 percent more The next set of
throughput to a Galaxy S5 than Aruba's AP-275, and 43 percent more than tests assessed outdoor
the Ruckus T300. At 1,000 feet the Cisco 1572 AP delivers 71 percent more performance with
to a Galaxy S5 than Aruba's AP-275, and double – 109 percent more than – multiple smartphone
the Ruckus T300. clients of the same
type, concurrently

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 4

 connected in different locations and with different Figure 5: Outdoor Multi-Client Performance
orientations. and Consistency Aerial View
The clients were all Apple's latest iPhone 6. Ten
of the iPhone 6 phones were deployed outside
on two tables, five per table, with a good line-of-
sight access to the AP. One table was situated
at 350 feet from the AP, the other at 500 feet, as
shown in the diagram to the right.
The iPhones were set at vertical and horizontal
orientations (see below). The tables and phones
were positioned at various angles to mimic a real
world scenario, with fairly good signal conditions
at each location.
Figure 6: Table on Location 1 with Five
iPhone 6 Phones in Multiple Orientations

iPhone 6 testing. Five Apple iPhone 6s were

Figure 7: Table on Location 2 with Five
iPhone 6 Phones in Multiple Orientations
placed on a table at Location 1 – 500 feet
down-range from the APs. Five more iPhones
were placed on a table at Location 2, 350 feet.
Multiple test runs were conducted to measure
the throughput performance of all the phones.
The average was taken of two test runs, per
AP, for each of the five phones at one table.
This was then repeated with the five phones at
the second table. Then an average of two test
runs for all ten phones was taken.

Figure 8: 802.11ac Outdoor Performance and Consistency

iPhone 6 phones on two tables at 500’ and 300’ Outperforming outdoors.
100 The average downlink
90 85.91
throughput per iPhone 6 is
80.37 shown for: 1) five phones at
80 75.98 500 feet, 2) five phones at
70 67.59 Cisco AP 350 feet and 3) all ten
1572i
60 phones operating at the
same time. The Cisco
Mbps

50 Aruba
44.48 41.37 39.56 AP-275 Aironet 1572 effectively
40 36.11
delivers double the per-client
30 28.42 Ruckus
T300 throughput of the Aruba
20 AP-275 and the Ruckus
10 T300 for the phones at
500 feet, and with all phones
0
T1-500 feet T2-300 feet T-Both operating concurrently.
(5 iPhones) (5 iPhones) (10 iPhones)
Performance at 500', 300' and both together

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 5

 Figure 9: Outdoor Mesh Network Diagram

IxChariot
Root AP Server
Mesh AP on Rooftop
Wired
Client Wireless LAN
80MHz Backhaul Controller (WLC)

Switch

Backhaul topology. Two Cisco 1572 Access Points were set-up in a 'mesh backhaul'
configuration, where a single 80-MHz WiFi (802.11ac) channel was used to link two wired networks
1,000 feet apart. Tests validated throughput over 300 Mbps for TCP traffic and 600 Mbps for UDP.
Neither Aruba nor Ruckus supported Mesh on their outdoor 802.11ac APs at the time of testing.

Outdoor Mesh Backhaul Test

Backhaul generally refers to the extension
of network services across a user
organization's multiple sites. Connecting
private-network sites via a wireless Access
Point is not something many network
designers would consider viable today. But
in certain topologies, it can be an effectively
workable solution.
The Cisco Aironet 1572 Access Point was
developed to also serve a backhaul role.
That was what the next test was designed to
verify – how much bandwidth can be
delivered over a single 80-MHz, IEEE
802.11ac channel to another 1572 AP up to
1,000 feet away.
The benefit to being able to link two sites
1,000 feet apart, quickly with two relatively
inexpensive WiFi APs is clearly apparent.
Where connectivity in a hurry is needed,
or traversing a public roadway or other
thorny right-of-way issue, this can be an
invaluable alternative to an underground
cable or licensed microwave link.
In the test configuration (see diagram
above), the rooftop Cisco AP 1572
connected wirelessly across 1,000 feet to
a second Cisco AP 1572, mounted on a
30-foot tower. Ixia's IxChariot was again
used to measure the throughput – from a
server cable-connected to the rooftop AP,
across the wireless mesh-backhaul
connection, to the remote AP, which is
connected by wire to a client machine.

Figure 10: Outdoor 802.11ac Mesh Backhaul Performance Backhaul a la WiFi. A

pair of Cisco 1572 APs
700
can be readily used for
601 593 TCP linking two wired
600
Downlink networks 1,000 feet apart.
Down-link throughput
500
TCP over the single-80-MHz
407 Uplink WiFi channel was 329
400
Mbps

329 Mbps for TCP and 600

300 UPD Mbps for UDP. Neither
Downlink the Aruba AP-275 nor the
200 Ruckus T300 supported
UDP such a backhaul
100 Uplink capability as mesh
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 feature was not available
0 for either of the vendors’
Cisco AP 1572e Aruba AP-275 Ruckus T300 802.11ac APs at the time
Source: Miercom, January 2015 of testing.

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 6

 High-Client Density Test: 100 client mix. A potpourri of popular wireless client
100 Clients devices was included in the high-client density test.
When fully populated, all 100 real-world connected with
In another test, we sought to load the same AP. The MacBook Pro and the iPad Air
the APs with a mixed set of real
devices supported 802.11n; all the rest supported the
world clients and see how well they latest 802.11ac.
scale, performance-wise, under
heavy stress as the number of
clients contending for airtime on the
same AP grows.
Shown on the right is the
Aruba AP-275 Cisco Aironet Ruckus T300
assortment of clients included in this 1572e
test. The client mix was applied in
increments of 10 and each new
increment (20, 30, 40 etc.) was
tested separately. The clients’
distribution operating over 5GHz
and 2.4-GHz frequency bands was
70 and 30 percent, respectively, and
was maintained throughout the
testing.
To assess the difference in Indoor venue. Due to the difficulty of testing such a
performance between the Cisco AP large number of devices outside, this testing was done
with external antenna (1572e) and indoors. Clients were all distributed 10 to 45 feet from
the AP model with internal antenna the AP, which in the shot below was the Aruba AP-275.
(1572i), both were separately
tested.
As the results in Figure 1 on page 1
of this report show, both Cisco AP
models worked at basically the
same level of performance with
each incremental increase in clients.
To summarize, the Cisco 1572
access points consistently out-
performed the Aruba AP-275 and
the Ruckus T300.
For TCP down-link performance, the
Cisco 1572 delivered from 15 to 50
percent better throughput per client,
on average, than the Aruba AP-275.
Figure 11: High Client Density Test Results Summary
Similarly, for TCP down-link Average per-client TCP downlink throughput (Mbps)
performance, the Cisco 1572
delivered from 38 to 70 percent 301
better throughput per client, on
Number of Clients

100 302
average, than the Ruckus T300. Cisco 1572i
228
177
Bottom Line Cisco 1572e

This testing exercised the Cisco, Aruba AP-275

422
Aruba and Ruckus Access Points
414 Ruckus T300
for throughput performance in a 100
20
374
broad range of outdoor scenarios. In
282
every test, the Cisco 1572
outperformed the competitive APs
from Aruba and Ruckus. Mbps 0 100 200 300 400 500

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 7

 Test Bed Configuration

Source: Cisco

How We Did It
The test scenarios applied for this report were as varied as their objectives. Details are included in the descriptions and
results for each test throughout this report.
All the outdoor tests were conducted over the same outdoor test range. At that location the Access Points were mounted
and tested, one at a time, on the roof-top of a building. All APs and controllers were configured using similar
configurations (same channels, SSID, Cat-6A cable length) with the individual vendors' best practices applied. For 5GHz,
channel 149+ on 80MHz bandwidth, and for 2.4GHz, channel 1 on 20MHz bandwidth were set with the Tx power set to
max on both bands for all three vendors. Distances from the building were marked off in 100-foot gradations. In the first
test, of rate vs range, a mix of handheld client devices was tested for down-link throughput at 300, 600 and 1,000 feet. In
the second test, groups of Apple iPhone 6 smartphones were tested at 350 and 500 feet, and then their throughput
compared with all ten Apple iPhones downloading concurrently from both locations to assess overall consistency of the
network. A third test checked the throughput of two Cisco APs connected over 1,000 feet in a backhaul arrangement.
The last test was performed inside the building to compare how throughput scaled under heavy stress when the client
load on the AP grew from 10 to 100. All the latest controller codes available at the time of testing were deployed: Cisco
8.0 MR1, Aruba 6.4.2.2, and Ruckus 9.8.1.0
Miercom recognizes IxChariot by Ixia (www.ixiacom.com) as a leading test tool for simulating real-world applications for
predicting device and system performance under practical load conditions. Consisting of the IxChariot Console,
Performance Endpoints and IxProfile, the IxChariot product family provides network performance assessment and device
testing by testing hundreds of protocols across several kinds of network endpoints. IxChariot is used to accurately access
the performance characteristics of any application running on wired and wireless networks. IxChariot v7.30 was used for
all the test cases.
Miercom recommends customers conduct their own needs analysis study and test specifically for the expected
environment for product deployment before making a product selection. Miercom engineers are available to assist
customers for their own custom analysis and specific product deployments on a consulting basis. Contact Miercom
Professional Services via reviews@miercom.com for assistance.

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 8

Miercom Performance Verified
Cisco Aironet 1572 delivered superior results in all of the
wireless performance tests. A mix of popular
smartphones and other WiFi client devices all achieved a
higher performance in all environments, at all distances,
with the Cisco Aironet 1572 than with either the Aruba
AP-275 or the Ruckus T300 AP.
Featuring a 4x4 MIMO design and supporting three
spatial streams, the Cisco Aironet 1572 also operates at
the maximum radiated strength allowed by law, assuring
superior performance for a high density of clients out to
1,000 feet and beyond.
These comparative and competitive test results
substantiate award of this Miercom Performance Verified
Certification to the Cisco Aironet 1572.

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Cisco Aironet 170 West Tasman Drive
1572e San Jose, CA
Access Point 1-800-553-6387
www.cisco.com

About Miercom’s Product Testing Services

Miercom has published hundreds of network-product-

comparison analyses in leading trade periodicals and other
publications. Miercom’s reputation as the leading,
independent product test center is undisputed.

Private test services available from Miercom include

competitive product analyses, as well as individual product
evaluations. Miercom features comprehensive certification
and test programs including: Certified Interoperable,
Certified Reliable, Certified Secure and Certified Green.
Products may also be evaluated under the Performance
Verified program, the industry’s most thorough and trusted
assessment for product usability and performance.

Report 141212 reviews@miercom.com www.miercom.com  Before printing, please

consider electronic distribution.

Product names or services mentioned in this report are registered trademarks of their respective owners. Miercom makes every effort to ensure that
information contained within our reports is accurate and complete, but is not liable for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions. Miercom is not liable for
damages arising out of or related to the information contained within this report. Professional consulting services are also available to provide
customer-specific needs analysis from Miercom.

Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point Page 9